D
DianaCC
Guest
No he did not, and if he did, he would have been wrong.
Chrysostom is not talking about gibberish.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
DianaCC
Guest
The point is to judge them by their fruits. Let’s just say I can’t see the fruits for the leaves.Here’s my question: what is the motive behind advocating, so to speak, “no miracles”? What is the point of that? What can anyone stand to gain from that mentality?
L
ltwin
Guest
The arguments that these gifts were not meant to continue after the time of the apostles doesn’t hold up if you look at the literature. For example, Book I Chapter 47 “Of A Gift” of the *Testamentum Domini *(“Testament of Our Lord”), written in the 5th century, states:
Chrysostom does say that the gifts are not present as they once were, but the picture he paints isn’t a flattering one of the church of his time though. It is hard to argue that Chrysostom is saying that this is the way its supposed to be:If any one appear in the people to have a gift of healing or of knowledge or of tongues, a hand is not laid on him, for the work is manifest. But let them have honour.
What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts. For now also we speak two or three, and in turn, and when one is silent, another begins. But these are only signs and memorials of those things. Wherefore when we begin to speak, the people respond, with your Spirit , indicating that of old they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of my own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who has fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one does the present Church resemble. And I say not this in respect of gifts: for it were nothing marvelous if it were this only: but in respect also of life and virtue. Thus the list of her widows, and the choir of her virgins, then gave great ornament to the churches: but now she is made desolate and void, and the tokens only remain. There are indeed widows now, there are also virgins; but they retain not that adornment which women should have who prepare themselves for such wrestlings. For the special distinction of the virgin is the caring for the things of God alone, and the waiting on Him without distraction: and the widow’s mark too should be not so much the not engaging in a second marriage, as the other things, charity to the poor, hospitality, continuing instant in prayers, all those other things, which Paul writing to Timothy requires with great exactness. One may see also the married women exhibiting among us great seemliness. But this is not the only thing required, but rather that sedulous attention to the needy, through which those women of old shone out most brightly. Not as the generality now-a-days. For then instead of gold they were clothed with the fair array of almsgiving: but now, having left off this, they are decked out on every side with cords of gold woven of the chain of their sins.
Shall I speak of another repository too emptied of its hereditary splendor? They all met together in old time and sang psalms in common. This we do also now: but then among all was there one soul and one heart: but now not in one single soul can one see that unanimity, rather great is the warfare every where.
Peace, even now, to all, he that presides in the Church prays for, entering as it were into his Father’s house: but of this peace the name is frequent, but the reality no where.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
“Why, they say, are those miracles, which you affirm were wrought formerly, wrought no longer?.. For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ… [He then goes on to recount miracle after miracle that have happened in his diocese. He then says:] What am I to do? I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work, that I cannot record all the miracles I know; and doubtless several of our adherents, when they read what I have narrated, will regret that I have omitted so many which they, as well as I, certainly know. Even now I beg these persons to excuse me, and to consider how long it would take me to relate all those miracles, which the necessity of finishing the work I have undertaken forces me to omit. For were I to be silent of all others, and to record exclusively the miracles of healing which were wrought in the district of Calama and of Hippo by means of this martyr-I mean the most glorious Stephen-they would fill many volumes; and yet all even of these could not be collected, but only those of which narratives have been written for public recital. For when I saw, in our own times, frequent signs of the presence of divine powers similar to those which had been given of old, I desired that narratives might be written, judging that the multitude should not remain ignorant of these things.”No he did not, and if he did, he would have been wrong.
Chrysostom is not talking about gibberish.
-Augustine, The City of God 22.8
“It is indeed true: that the sick are not always healed… But what I said should not be taken as understanding that no miracles are believed to happen today in the name of Christ. For at the very time I wrote … a blind man in [the] city [of Milan] was given back his sight; and so many other things of this kind have happened, even in this present time, that it is not possible to know all of them or to count up all those we do have knowledge of” ( - St. Augustine Retractions 1.13)
I like this quote from St. Patrick of Ireland: He who wants to can laugh and jeer, but I shall not keep silent nor keep hidden the signs and wonders which have been shown to me by the Lord before they took place, as He knows all things before the world began.
Chrysostom is not talking about gibberish. Neither are we.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
I’m very sorry to hear that.The point is to judge them by their fruits. Let’s just say I can’t see the fruits for the leaves.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. vardaquinn
Dear vardaquinn,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your recent batch of responses, which I have now had opportunity to persuse.
The extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit occured during the aposotlic age and were jolly helpful in spreading our most holy Faith throughout the known world at that time. Such manifestions had the specific purpose to spread the Gospel to the hearers of different earthly languages and of verifying the credibility of a speaker. However, it is incontrovertible that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled and finally petered out at the end of the apostolic age, their end being fully accomplished. The Church had by then achieved moral universality and was firmly planted so as to render these manifestations no longer either useful or necessary.
With the acheivement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such miraculous phenomena ceased and that for several reasons; primarily because of the presence within the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the one true religion to the exclusion of all others, short though it was. Now the very same argument can be made today against the true charismata’s contemporary presence. Since our Church is now both morally and physically universal, containing men - even clergy - of every nation, what possible need can there be of *glossolalia * for evangelisation? Since Holy Mother Church has an outstanding 2000 year record as the one true religion, established by Christ, what further need has she to prove her claims? As St. Augustine remarked, “Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in tongues of all nations, becuase the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost”.
The Charismatics have a zeal for God and the Faith, but not according to knowldege. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord warned us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…” (S. Matt. 7: 15,16). False teachers are not always false teachers in the traditional sense but can include also those who genuinely believe what they teach and propose to do good by their teaching. Nevertheless, being in error themselves, they sadly lead other men astray and are still, in the final analysis, false teachers; one could could say that they are, as it were, honest teachers of false teachings. It is my deepest conviction that the vast majority of Pentecostals/Charismatics fall under this heading, yet the faithful must still beware of them, perhaps even more than regular false teachers. Jesus says that we will know false teachers, of whatever variety, by their “fruits”. Even here, however, deception cannot be ruled out, but in the long run the purveyor of erroneous teaching will reveal his true colours by his life and character. Moreover, we need to ensure that we look for the right sort of fruits and St. Paul informs us of what these consist: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control: against such there is no law” (Gal. 5: 22,23). Again: "(For the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true) (Eph. 5: 9). The last word, “true”, suggests a warning that even holiness of life is not the only fruit for which we must look. Clearly, if the teacher, who professes to teach God’s truth, teaches anything contrary to that truth, then he is known by his “fruits” to be a false teacher, for truth is one of the fruits also. Therefore, whilst it is freely admitted that some Charismatically inclined Christians do live a “pious and world-denying life”, that of itself does not automatically validate their erroneous teachings concerning the charismata etc.
What occured on the Day of Pentecost cannot be compared to what occurs at modern day Charismatic gatherings. The crowds thought that they were “drunk with new wine” because they were at a genuine loss to know what was happening before their very eyes; the primary reaction was one of incomprehensibility. That some people were ready to explain the tongue-speaking as a result of inebriation, would surely be a most natural explanation to offer if one heard people making unintelligible noises, as some of the sounds must have seemed to those hearers who did not recogonize the particular language being used. What is significant is that it was that the various vernacular languages of these gathered peoples that were being uttered, not the meaningless gibberish of modern Pentecostal/Charismatic meetings. As I have said previously, linguistic analyses of the ‘tongues’ spoken in contemporary Pentecostalism reveal that they are non-human gibberish. The fact that the occasional speaker may be heard speaking a known foreign language proves absolutely nothing, since that speaker may be fluent in that particular language. It does not* ip**so facto* follow that he has the N.T. gift of tongues. True, he may claim not to be able to speak in that language to give the whole thing a very miraculous air and quality, but there is really no way of verifying his claim one way or the other. However, in most instances of modern day tongues it is unintelligible speach that is being spoken and not authentic dialects and this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genuine charismata are not present in the contemporary Church, as much as some men may wish that that they were.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear vardaquinn,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your recent batch of responses, which I have now had opportunity to persuse.
The extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit occured during the aposotlic age and were jolly helpful in spreading our most holy Faith throughout the known world at that time. Such manifestions had the specific purpose to spread the Gospel to the hearers of different earthly languages and of verifying the credibility of a speaker. However, it is incontrovertible that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled and finally petered out at the end of the apostolic age, their end being fully accomplished. The Church had by then achieved moral universality and was firmly planted so as to render these manifestations no longer either useful or necessary.
With the acheivement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such miraculous phenomena ceased and that for several reasons; primarily because of the presence within the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the one true religion to the exclusion of all others, short though it was. Now the very same argument can be made today against the true charismata’s contemporary presence. Since our Church is now both morally and physically universal, containing men - even clergy - of every nation, what possible need can there be of *glossolalia * for evangelisation? Since Holy Mother Church has an outstanding 2000 year record as the one true religion, established by Christ, what further need has she to prove her claims? As St. Augustine remarked, “Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in tongues of all nations, becuase the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost”.
The Charismatics have a zeal for God and the Faith, but not according to knowldege. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord warned us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…” (S. Matt. 7: 15,16). False teachers are not always false teachers in the traditional sense but can include also those who genuinely believe what they teach and propose to do good by their teaching. Nevertheless, being in error themselves, they sadly lead other men astray and are still, in the final analysis, false teachers; one could could say that they are, as it were, honest teachers of false teachings. It is my deepest conviction that the vast majority of Pentecostals/Charismatics fall under this heading, yet the faithful must still beware of them, perhaps even more than regular false teachers. Jesus says that we will know false teachers, of whatever variety, by their “fruits”. Even here, however, deception cannot be ruled out, but in the long run the purveyor of erroneous teaching will reveal his true colours by his life and character. Moreover, we need to ensure that we look for the right sort of fruits and St. Paul informs us of what these consist: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control: against such there is no law” (Gal. 5: 22,23). Again: "(For the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true) (Eph. 5: 9). The last word, “true”, suggests a warning that even holiness of life is not the only fruit for which we must look. Clearly, if the teacher, who professes to teach God’s truth, teaches anything contrary to that truth, then he is known by his “fruits” to be a false teacher, for truth is one of the fruits also. Therefore, whilst it is freely admitted that some Charismatically inclined Christians do live a “pious and world-denying life”, that of itself does not automatically validate their erroneous teachings concerning the charismata etc.
What occured on the Day of Pentecost cannot be compared to what occurs at modern day Charismatic gatherings. The crowds thought that they were “drunk with new wine” because they were at a genuine loss to know what was happening before their very eyes; the primary reaction was one of incomprehensibility. That some people were ready to explain the tongue-speaking as a result of inebriation, would surely be a most natural explanation to offer if one heard people making unintelligible noises, as some of the sounds must have seemed to those hearers who did not recogonize the particular language being used. What is significant is that it was that the various vernacular languages of these gathered peoples that were being uttered, not the meaningless gibberish of modern Pentecostal/Charismatic meetings. As I have said previously, linguistic analyses of the ‘tongues’ spoken in contemporary Pentecostalism reveal that they are non-human gibberish. The fact that the occasional speaker may be heard speaking a known foreign language proves absolutely nothing, since that speaker may be fluent in that particular language. It does not* ip**so facto* follow that he has the N.T. gift of tongues. True, he may claim not to be able to speak in that language to give the whole thing a very miraculous air and quality, but there is really no way of verifying his claim one way or the other. However, in most instances of modern day tongues it is unintelligible speach that is being spoken and not authentic dialects and this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genuine charismata are not present in the contemporary Church, as much as some men may wish that that they were.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
D
DianaCC
Guest
You know, Portrait, I see a pattern to the apologists’ responses. When the phenomenon first arises among them, they label it a miraculous manifestation of human languages. When upon investigation it is demonstrated that they are not known human languages, they retreat to labeling it a miraculous manifestation of nonhuman languages. Then when it is demonstrated that, neurologically speaking, it is not language, they retreat to labeling it a miraculous bypassing of the usual natural channels. Each step of the retreat process is a step towards agnosticism, whereas the journey began with a confident assertion of what appeared to be knowledge.
Well if they were angelic languages, why did they misidentify them as human in the first place?
And how do they know the phenomenon is angelic language? Not because they have compared it to a sample of angelic language.
To me, it resembles the pattern of, among others, new age hucksters, who make assertions that in principle seem verifiable, but then when verification fails, they excuse themselves by asserting that what seems investigable is beyond investigation.
Well if they were angelic languages, why did they misidentify them as human in the first place?
And how do they know the phenomenon is angelic language? Not because they have compared it to a sample of angelic language.
To me, it resembles the pattern of, among others, new age hucksters, who make assertions that in principle seem verifiable, but then when verification fails, they excuse themselves by asserting that what seems investigable is beyond investigation.
- “The crystals redirect your energy.”
- “Funny, my instruments are not picking up any alteration of a magnetic field, no change in surface temperature, no change in color or brightness, no presence of ionizing radiation…”
- “No, the crystals redirect your *psychic *energy, and your instruments can’t measure that.”
- “Oh. And how did you find out the crystals redirect your psychic energy?”
- “You’re just a nonbeliever.”
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Hi. I dealt with the historical matter before, discussing the reasons why it petered out. But ultimately, the charisms simply did not. If you read Church history, it’s chock full with manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Preaching the Gospel in unknown languages happened throughout the history of the church with various saintly missionaries - St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Francis Xavier, for example. The other form of tongues admittedly did become less common.Such manifestions had the specific purpose to spread the Gospel to the hearers of different earthly languages and of verifying the credibility of a speaker. However, it is incontrovertible that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled and finally petered out at the end of the apostolic age, their end being fully accomplished.
But prophecy, healing, miracles (the more extraordinary batch of the charisms in 1 Cor 12)… these all occured through out Church history. There were so many saints and holy men and women scattered throughout the world that manifested these. But for various reasons, it was often restricted to religious and it was not on the full large scale that it’s supposed to be.
This is getting repetitive now… I mean, it’s a simple point. Whether or not they died out is beside the point. They’re happening now. The Church called for this new Pentecost, a renewal of the signs and wonders of the Holy Spirit. And that’s what happened.
Here, this was posted on another thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8352836&postcount=154 Tells the story of a village that manifested the charisms for hundreds of years.
To limit the extraordinary gifts to simply preaching the Gospel in unknown languages is foolish - it clearly contradicts Scripture.
Well, it still occurs. I have heard a number of stories of individuals alive today who preached the Gospel in languages they have never studied. Bl. John Paul the Great says in “Rise Let Us Be on Our Way” - “It also includes the gift of tongues, that is the gift of speaking in a language understood by all the faithful. We should pray to the Holy Spirit for this gift”. (pg. 107).Since our Church is now both morally and physically universal, containing men - even clergy - of every nation, what possible need can there be of glossolalia for evangelisation?
There may circumstances where God needs this to occur. And so it does.
There was no need for it on Pentecost! All the people there would have shared at least one common language. But the Apostles spoke in their native dialects. It is a sign. Just because it can be preached does not mean the “seed” is going to fall on fertile ground.
This is a logical fallacy. I could just as easily call non-charismatics false prophets, judging them by their fruits. Know them by their fruits, indeed! I see, and so have the Popes and bishops, immense fruits in this movement. In the words of Pope Paul VI,The Charismatics have a zeal for God and the Faith, but not according to knowldege. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord warned us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…” (S. Matt. 7: 15,16).
how could this not be a chance for the Church, and the world?"
This is a bare assertion, because you have not established that their teaching are false concerning the charismata. Particularly in light of the many quotes I have provided from Church teaching on the subject, which openly uphold our teaching on the charismata.Therefore, whilst it is freely admitted that some Charismatically inclined Christians do live a “pious and world-denying life”, that of itself does not automatically validate their erroneous teachings concerning the charismata etc.
I can turn this around on yourself. Whilst it is freely admitted some non-charismatically inclined Christian do live a pious and world-denying life, that in and of itself does not automatically validate their erroneous teachings concerning the charismata. You are openly and directly contradicting Church teaching, both the infallible word of God, catechisms, documents (dogmatic constitutions)…
Here, read what the Catholic Encylopedia has to say on it. newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm
Another bare assertion (that is is incomparable). They thought they were drunk, because they were acting in a way similar to drunkenness.What occured on the Day of Pentecost cannot be compared to what occurs at modern day Charismatic gatherings. The crowds thought that they were “drunk with new wine” because they were at a genuine loss to know what was happening before their very eyes; the primary reaction was one of incomprehensibility
Pentecost was not simply a single event that happened to the Apostles. It isn’t over. It occurred in your own life as well, when you were confirmed - whether or not you were aware of it.
Some linguistic analyses conclude this of some individual Pentecostals. Others conclude that it is a genuine language among other charismatics. This is a logical fallacy. If I have a bushel of fruit, which is labeled “apples”, but the top fruit are all pears does that automatically mean that all the fruit in the bushel are not what they are labelled as, but in fact something different? Of course not.As I have said previously, linguistic analyses of the ‘tongues’ spoken in contemporary Pentecostalism reveal that they are non-human gibberish.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
But suppose the speaker is not, and has never even heard the language before, as I have demonstrated with a number of examples?The fact that the occasional speaker may be heard speaking a known foreign language proves absolutely nothing, since that speaker may be fluent in that particular language
Bare assertion, and it does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that genuine charismata aren’t present in the Church today. They’re supposed to be! That’s what the Church teaches!. However, in most instances of modern day tongues it is unintelligible speach that is being spoken and not authentic dialects and this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genuine charismata are not present in the contemporary Church, as much as some men may wish that that they were.
Your posts, which I thank you for making so polite, unfortunately are so riddled with statements contrary to Church teaching and logical fallacies.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Certainly among those who are faking it, anyway. That doesn’t prove anything conclusively, merely that some people are faking it.You know, Portrait, I see a pattern to the apologists’ responses. When the phenomenon first arises among them, they label it a miraculous manifestation of human languages. When upon investigation it is demonstrated that they are not known human languages, they retreat to labeling it a miraculous manifestation of nonhuman languages. Then when it is demonstrated that, neurologically speaking, it is not language, they retreat to labeling it a miraculous bypassing of the usual natural channels. Each step of the retreat process is a step towards agnosticism, whereas the journey began with a confident assertion of what appeared to be knowledge.
I don’t see why you doubt a gift of the Holy Spirit that is clearly defined in Scripture and Church teaching…
- Status
- Not open for further replies.